Feb 6 2013:
I don't think so. We start with identifying the problem/issue and what we know and what we don't know. Then prioritize what we don't know into what we need to know first. Then we work on the correct question that will address what we don't know so we can get the answer we need.

But that's just how I do it. I have to answer to my profession and I have to follow all the steps.

The answer is easy once you have the question. The hard work happens before you have the question. The question sets up the proof.

Feb 6 2013:
Really that makes no sense are you sure that's how you work? because it still sound like you start with the answer and or evidence first and then come up with the question. After that fits your evidence.

We start with A to be true as the answer

Then we ask the question B

If B is the question to the answer A

We prove it if C happens

Is the correct from your statement above?

Also there is a fallacy of concreteness. And the best part is that Quantum Physics say the tangibleness item has more holes in it than most logic does. And yet we still call it real? Why is that? I am not say this material world is not real but what I am say is when we know its fake why still hurt other? Because we know their pain is "real", which again pain is just neurotransmitters sending a signal to your brain.

We know there is a high homicide rate in Chicago. Guns are regulated more in Chicago than in the rest of the US, gun violence is higher among males, higher in poverty stricken neighborhoods, associated with gangs.

What we do not know is how do we stop or reduce gun violence in Chicago. What is it about poverty among young males that precipitates gun violence and can we address that. What is it about poverty that precipitates the formation or infiltration of gangs? Why do young men in gangs resort to gun violence. What social structures perpetuate gun violence. What greater social attitudes reinforce the social dynamic that leads young men to seek out gun violence. What is the geographical typography of the city that perpetuates gun violence but only in certain areas of the city?

What needs to happen is to find the root cause of gun violence as it manifests in Chicago. So I have identified the problem, identified what I know and do not know and now I need to prioritize.

Prioritization also includes what resources do I have to effect change. Just little ol' me has limited influence on gangs or young men or poverty. (I am completely making this up so there is no correlation to real world here except for the fact that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country).

But let's say, in my preliminary research, I find that law enforcement does not address gun violence because of a prevailing attitude that these poor young men will just grow up to be criminals anyway so they are not motivated to put their lives on the line to confiscate illegal weapons. They are happy to let them kill each other. I find out this may be a contributing cause.

So I design a research study to look into this possibility and I come up with a research question. Here are some examples:

How do law enforcement officials justify the lack of enforcing illegal weapon legislation?

Feb 6 2013:
... from previous
Do law enforcement officials inequitably apply illegal weapon legislation?
What is the effect of an educational intervention on the practice of illegal weapon legislation among law enforcement officials?

Each of those questions will drive a specific methodology that will arrive at a specific answer. The first will require narrative research, the second could be answered with a survey and the fourth would need some measurement with statistical application. Each of those methods also have a method of proof. So the answer will be proven by the method which is driven by the question.

There. Social science research in 3000 words or less.

I could also do this with hard science hypothesis testing. You make an observation (have a theory) and wonder if circumstances are the same, will it be repeated... Yada yada. But that is snooze ville sixth grade science.

Feb 4 2013:
Knowledge is obtained primarily from outside sources (print, instruction, conversation, multi-media, etc.) Most knowledge is accepted based on "trust" "belief" or "confidence" in the source. Knowledge is stuff you want to know, but it is typically not emotionally connected to your life and life choices.

Wisdom represents those things that are emotionally relevant to your life and life choices. Wisdom is what you "know" to be true for you. Wisdom can only be achieved through experience. If I experience something directly, then I know it to be true.

In both cases the answer is "my answer". If you trust me than my answer may also become your answer. If we share an experience and have the same emotional connection, than we share that wisdom. The path to knowledge and the path to wisdom are very different paths.

What we know about quantum mechanics is based on the context of our physical reality. Yet, the "big bang" did not just produce our reality, did it? There are many universes with perhaps different physics that were produced by the same source. One cannot completely understand the whole by studying a part of the whole. Since it is difficult from our perspective to know the whole in order to subsequently understand our specific part, we are limited to what we can observe and experience, which will never tell the whole story of which everything is a part....unless somehow we learn to connect with and experience the whole... because experience is true wisdom.

Feb 25 2013:
I'd say we can't. We can't prove anything, and we can only disprove with a certain probulity that allows us to make theories about the world around us. Our world is one of theories, just some theories are more likely than others, and one day a new theory might come along that is even more likely that the one we hold true now.

Feb 28 2013:
So the only way I have been able to say "prove" an answers is that it has to be common sense to other. It doesn't matter if their common sense even makes sense it can be backwards from your personal logic or reasoning. But if you can make your "truth" common sense to them then they will know it as truth

Feb 7 2013:
We cannot disprove the existence of God. Must we therefore assume there is a God?

We do not assume all things to be true which we are unable to disprove. Instead we accept the possibilty that they may be true. We determine the likelyhood that something is true and following Occum's Razor, we tend to accept the theory that requires the fewest steps in order to be true.
For example, The universe coming into existence requires fewer steps than the universe coming into existence with the help of a God. We therefore accept that it is more likely that the universe does not require a God in order to exist. We cannot disprove God but we certainly do not assume one exists.

Feb 7 2013:
Occam is a nice 'tool' to dissolve (personal) cognitive dissonance just by chosing theories. Ofcourse you are free to chose whatever thing you (personally) want to believe.

But to defend my earlier post: The difference between "assume" and "accept the possibilty that they may be true" is really small. So I take it that your only problem is with the word "all", as you use Occam's razor to limit the "all" as you don't want to have conflicting ideas (god / no god) simultaneuously.
It kind of reminds me of schrodingers cat in a way (alive / dead) ;).
However you cannot simply say that because you chose to discard some theory because of it's unlikelyhood that you suddenly stop holding it to be true.

So in a way you still assume the discarded theories as being true... untill they are proven to be false.

Now as to religion... I am forced to assume that it's true. However I am also forced to assume that it is not true (as I cannot disprove the non-existence of God either). And that is where "faith" comes in for normal people. However I have no problem in not believing in God while assuming that he may exist.
Although the question rises if religion hasn't disproven itself already....

Feb 7 2013:
I do not choose which theories to believe, i am forced to accept them, like them or not, based on the evidence.

The difference between assuming something is true and accepting that it may (or may not) be true is very big! I can't even imagine how you came to that conclusion.

But yes, one of the most basic laws of propsitional logic is that something cannot be both true and false. There either is a God or there is not.

Occums razor is a tested system and the data suggest that it works.

And no, that is what YOU are saying not me, that discarded theories should be assumed true because they haven't be disproven. If another theory seems to explain the facts more accurately, the first theory can generally be discarded and forgotten. However it is often unreasonable to say that it is definitely not true. But that is not the same as saying, "well it must be true because nobody has disproven it yet". If you make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. If you can produce the evidence you may convince some people, if you cannot, your claim should be assumed false untill evidence does emerge.

I knew that it was likely that you were a believer (hence i picked God as an example) because it is generally believers who think that they can make a claim and that it is up to everybody else to disprove it. This is simply not the case, sorry.
And you say, "normal people" like the fact that i don't accept your God makes me abnormal. I don't accept that. And as i said, you are forced to assume God does not exist until you can provide evidence. However, you not forced to assume he does exist just because there is a lack of evidnece that he does not, because providing evidence that something supernatural does not exist is not possible. You are taking it out of the field of science. In that case the laws of logic no longer apply and you are forced to rely entirely on faith. i.e. belief without reason for believe.
You've slaughtered your own argument.

Feb 7 2013:
I'm saying that you can't discard any theory while it's not proven to be false... You say that Occam's Razor is a valid tool in chosing theories... but it's not. It's the easy way out of science and into religion.
You say that the universe is easier understood through science than "Hey someone put it there". I disagree and I'm sure you will too if you know how few things physics can truelly explain... Therefor if Occam's razor would work you would be religious by now. To think about how quantumphysics work and how that can lead to a universe... is seriously complex. While going: "Someone made this" is much shorter and easier to understand.

Perhaps you should reread my post with the added knowledge that I don't believe in any God?

Also... religion is a 'theory' which is, in general, not testable and therefor is not science.

The existence of God is however (through most definitions of God, for instance you could 'test' if something can become almighty... if we can prove that one cannot then there is no god) testable and therefor could be included. So if you ask does God exist I would have to say that I don't know.
But I can't make any claim other than that I can assume it to be true. The fact that I don't believe any of it doesn't mean I'm right in doing so.

Feb 7 2013:
And i'm saying you can discard a theory without proving it false, if you show that another theory explains the facts more accurately. You haven't disproven the first theory, just shown that it is less likely to be true.
Now, you are getting mixed up because of the expression "someone made this". Ofcourse it's easier to actually say out loud, but it explains nothing. It doesn't give you the mechanism by which he/she made it. If we were to explain it, we'd then have to explain how the most complex thing one can possibly imagine either came into existence or just exists. You are stuck with the same problem that we have with explaining the universe's existence, the only difference is you have added an extra step (and it just happens to be the biggest step we could possibly add). Occam's razon DOES NOT allow for that.

Forgive me for thinking you were a believer, but with the "this is where faith comes in for normal people" line, you have only yourself to blame.

Religion is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and a failed one. A theory requires evidence. Whether it enters into the field of science depends on the individual claims made in the texts. Some do, some don't.

The existence of God is not testable by any scientific standard. Because no matter what data comes back, you could simply state that God is not subject the the laws of physics. So even if we "prove" that something can become almighty (how on earth would we go about doing that?) It wouldn't apply to God.
And the only assumption that you should be making is that you MAY be wrong in not believing. You should not assume that just because you can't be sure, there must be a God.
Imagine you have never heard of a God. The claim had never been made that there is one. You just knew the physics (to a degree) involved in the universe's birth. If i then came to you with the emply claim of an almighty being that made it all happen, would you be forced to assume i was right? Of course not. Not without evidence...

Feb 7 2013:
I will add that i will not be responding any further. I forgot how unrewarding internet debates were. Alot of effort for very little gain.
That's no reflection on you ofcourse, if it was in person i'd be happy to continue.

Feb 7 2013:
Religion doesn't call for any explaining... just for faith.
Which is why it's so simple to believe. Which is why occam's razor would be in favor of it. Because rather than discovering anything religion tells you "it was made by design". So you don't have to question the creation at all....
It is why when people stopped believing and started doing science that the world suddenly changed and came out of 'the dark ages'. Before then people just didn't question the world enough to make any progress.

I don't find "being a believer" any insult / disqualification though... I just write posts in ways such that people are often confused about my own beliefs :).

Also I just hold the 'theory' of a God being possible as true. But like I said religion is doing one heck of a job at showing that there can't be a God.
On the whole last alinea though I would point you towards a really nice movie from Ricky Gervais called "The invention of lying".... I think that there is quite a lot of truth in that comedy.

this question is good hence my response in question form. The answer is a lot harder. I have a sneaky feeling we are entering all sorts of new phases and our brains are playing catch-up. not with technology, you understand, but with the evolution of reason and the rational.

the classic view of the universe has been questioned by science for some time and there is a slow trickle-down effect in effect.

it seems to me that we now live in an age of "which version" as opposed to "the truth" - something that, I realise, is not really new but has become more obvious with the improving of communication technologies.

i think that as long as people ask this question of themselves, the answer will (eventually) be forth-coming. for them, not all of people-kind, which is the same thing, when you really boil it down.

Mar 1 2013:
It also seems to me that today's age is quite interesting. Recently, I tried to answer a similar question, how do we "know" things and why do we "believe" things, what's the difference, etc. This little manual about logic http://logictutorial.com/ and the idea that "meaning is exclusion" made me realize that we make sense of things by drawing boundaries between "A" and "not A" - existence and non-existence, "self" and "not self".

Many people try to understand their "self", their identity, what makes us human, etc. Keeping in mind that "meaning is exclusion", by doing so, we draw more and more boundaries dividing what "I am" from what "I am not" which leaves less and less space for what "I am" and separates us from the world, all connected together. This contradicts the globalization process which seems to tell us that we are one with the world. The process goes on and on forever, just like everything else keeps spinning in the universe. Fascinating to watch.

Mar 3 2013:
I remember a similar concept we went through while training to become a teacher - it was to do with the decline of the masculine for the simple reason that masculinity has often been defined (in the past) by what femininity is not.

Considering the changing roles of women in modern society (well, some of the more enlightened societies) and the changing definition of what femininity is, it leaves the man alone in a bit of a quandary as to how to "be a man".

Clunking a mastodon over the head and providing meat doesn't seem to cut it as much these days.

Feb 25 2013:
I guess that depends on the question being answered...but since you said "prove"...

A reductionist and scientific perspective on this:

Statistically speaking, you come up with a hypothesis (what you guess the answer is), and then you forget that, and try and prove the opposite: you try and prove the null hypothesis (that nothing happens, or that there is no effect). If you fail to prove the null hypothesis, only then do you conclude that the alternate hypothesis (what you guessed) was right Keeping in mind that some uncertainty is inevitable: 95% certainty is usually considered good enough.

The nice thing about science as a method for generating answers is that the field is so concerned with being unbiased, that statistical tests are designed so that you can prove yourself wrong if it all possible - before considering that you are right. Then add into this the need for replication of results and peer review and you have a pretty elegant system for answering questions (at least ones that are testable - and "provable").

Feb 26 2013:
In short, we prove something to be true by doing everything we can to prove that it's false. What survives these attempts is considered to be true (with a confidence level proportional to our effort). "Survival of the fittest" - evolution applied to ideas.

Another paradox of life. To prove ourselves right, we need to do our best to prove ourselves wrong.

it's like you can't gauge happiness without sorrow, light without darkness, male without female. the duality behind the singularity. full circle back to where we started. life is very neat and tidy in that way.

Mar 1 2013:
What Letitia said is correct. You don't start with an answer to prove an answer. Just the opposite, you start by trying to contradict the answer - thinking of any possible alternative explanations.

When you say something, the more your statement excludes, the more you say. E.g. saying that "the sky is blue" excludes all other colors from consideration. To say this is more meaningful than to say that "the sky is not green". To prove that "the sky is blue", essentially, you need to prove that it does not have any other color. The more colors you exclude, the more confident you are in your answer.

If you deal with known and limited amount of possibilities, you can get your confidence level up to 100%. But this is rarely the case. Confidence level is 1 - estimated probability of being wrong. This is uncertain world. Probability is all we've got.

Mar 1 2013:
Selecting the null-hypothesis is somewhat tricky. The scientist must make sure that the null-hypothesis and the hypothesis are mutually-exclusive and, in combination encompass all possibilities. Typically, if hypothesis is "A", the null-hypothesis should be "not A".

If your want to take that out of the equation, probably by showing that any change will disprove it, and showing that it holds its own without relying on assuming anything else to be true other than the fact that it is as it appears for all intents and purposes. Like, you can prove 1+2=3 by saying that 1+3≠3 as long as 1 is actually 1, 2 is actually 2, 3 is actually 3, + is actually +, = is actually =, and ≠ is actually ≠.

Feb 24 2013:
I was just questioning your inference that "I think therefore I am" is not an illusion as well.
I agree with you that our perceptions (beliefs) are at risk of being illusions (erroneous beliefs) even though our brain believes them to be real. Skepticism is healthy.
Random thoughts: There is hope.Technology has increased our sensory capacity to "see" the world/universe, with microscopes, spectroscopes, telescopes, microwave discs and arrays, so that some illusions have been dispelled, but I'm sure many remain. Similarly Neuroscience is better understanding our brains and dispelling our erroneous beliefs in how it works.
Proof exists in mathematics, I'm not sure it exists elsewhere with same rigor. Scientific method & Mathematics perhaps remain our best tools to provide answers to questions with a "proof" that many only be "good enough" for now.

Feb 24 2013:
"I think therefore I am" is the only thing that remains when you strip all possibly illusions.

Because the fact that you "think" means that somewhere a 'you' must "exist"... notice that it doesn't tell you anything about how you think or where you are or in what form 'you' are. Just that somewhere there must be a 'you' because how else could you think?

Feb 26 2013:
The producer of the Illusion, this one who is experiencing the Illusion and and the Illusion itself ARE ONE.
Famous "I think therefore I am" tells you , that the virtual reality created in a code is enduring as long as the code maker endures.

Feb 26 2013:
Possibly not ... but if the "illusions" lead to to "fitness" enhancing behaviors, it may not matter????

Illusions might well "accurately" represent a brains (mechanistic) response to sensory inputs and perceptions and become memories represented by neurons/neural circuits/proteins, but do they accurately represent the world out side the body? If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need.

"Self" is an illusion ... cognitive neuroscientist Bruce Hood explore(s) the building blocks of what we experience as the “self” in The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.

Feb 26 2013:
Re:" If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need."
Agreed ! :)
Meaning is in the confrontation of contradiction - the coincidencia apositorum.
Two opposites should not contradict to each other but resonate.
Illusion- yes; but your illusion is real and matters.
Something like this :)
But i would distinguish 'self' from ' ego-self'. We can't avoid language ambiguity here, but how ego-self-illusion is possible without Self ? Self is something not existing but real, it embraces ego-self, not the other way round.
Maybe there are ways to be aware of Self, but it's impossible to language it for language is a code and is the property of 'ego-self'.
Thanks for the name (Bruce Hood ) i'll google it .
Thank you !

Then what are you if not a collection of your thoughts?
The logic is... that whatever you think is being thought by you, and because of that "you" must somehow "exist".

Everything can be an illusion... but your thoughts put them to "your reality".
We could be all controled by some computer which presents our "thoughts" with an image of a natural world where you have a body and can break bones etc.
But the one thing that makes sure that a "you" exists is that what you think is somehow related to a "you".

In yet another form... There MUST be someTHING (which is strongly related to 'someone' which is strongly related to 'you') to trick even if we are being tricked.

Haven't you guys ever read up on "I think therefor I am"?
It is a really fascanating idea...

Mar 1 2013:
You mean the Hume that sais: "You can't really say that one leads to the other as cause and effect are not clear"?
Aka you cannot say that "I think 'therefor' I am" you can only say "I think and I am" in which case "I am" would be already the conclusion that Descartes was after?

Descartes sais that "because you think. You can infer that you are" rather than "whatever thinks has to exist".
There is no cause and effect needed there... Hume just imagined there to be because he was too busy with taking mathematical logic too literal.

Hume wasn't the only one to point out issues with this phrase. My point is that reason is quite useless when it comes to "self". All reasoning regarding "self" is circular. It's easier just to accept "I am" (our existence) as an unconditional self-evident truth, without reasoning, evidence, or proof.

Feb 18 2013:
As long as, when One ( start / original position ) becomes Two remains aware of the One - as one that made into / connection with One doesn't break / became the Two- there is no problem - Two , can do anything it likes , since being aware, it can easily converge into One- there is no problem. Problem may likely arise when forgetfulness factor gets introduced in One becoming Two equation. Humbly submitted.

Feb 19 2013:
@CaseyChristofaris,@ED Schulte, @ Natashanikulina - Thanks a lot. Please help further explore this Amnesia as Natasha rightly termed it. Being new to TED, at following link posted first question. What factors cause this Amnesia ?

Feb 18 2013:
@Natashanikulina- These are not numbers but relative positions only with respect to each other - question with respect to answer or answer with respect to question may interchange positions from 1 to 2 or 2 to 1 . So it seems from Positional -relative perspective , non of these - 1, 2, 3 , 4 , anything or zero has a stability or no duration. On the other hand , these are dynamically interchangeable , equally powerful positional entities. When one repositions into another as 2 or 0 or 3 until complete convergence occurs into Oneness - repositioning may continue.;)

Feb 18 2013:
Re : anything or zero has a stability or no duration.
I am slightly synesthetic, numbers for me are not only " relative positions with respect to each other ". They have colour, texture, transparency. So 'stability' and 'no duration' for me is quite real illusion :)
Thanks for your time !